Peter Singer’s main argument in his essay “Famine Affluence and Morality” is that we, in affluent countries, have a moral obligation to give equally and substantially to those suffering across the globe. Thus, he would refute any claim that there is moral justification for people to care more about those close by than those far away. His Principle of Sacrifice highlights this idea:

If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally to do it. [Singer 1971: 231]

Whilst Singer’s principle appears to make sense, as long as we agree with his first premise that suffering resulting from ‘lack of food shelter and medical care are bad’, it does not explain why people do tend to care more about the suffering of those close by than those far away.

As humans we seem to have an innate moral inclination to help those who are suffering, for example when we see a child crying because they have hurt …show more content…
Sending money overseas requires more effort than helping a drowning child. Helping the child is easier because they are close to me, my act of helping will be quick and only require me, providing I can swim. Helping someone further away is more challenging; it requires a charity to collect the money and send it across the globe, which takes time, people and organisation. This alerts us to the idea of physical distance, a distinction that may explain why people might care about the suffering of those close by than that of those far away. However, Singer combats this idea in his essay describing our world to be a “global village” meaning that proximity should no longer be an issue as we have the means to successfully send our aid to those suffering across the world almost as easily as we can get aid to those in countries near to